The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as no evidence has been produced that he currently meets the relevant notability guidelines - WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah lemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable biography. The subject seems to be a local businessman/entrepreneur who will be running for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. As of the time of this nomination, a Google search on "Noah Lemas" returns 44 hits, none of them anything more than personal/professional profiles and something to do with a local baseball team. If he does get elected to the House, he may deserve an article then but not only as a potential candidate. Too tangential. SWik78 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When one states directly that something is "too tangetial," (sic) they should think first about spelling and then about definition. This article is not tangential, it is of direct relevance to Oregon's 2nd congressional district race and to its major party candidates. Is this deletion for the sake of deletion? OregonChange (talk)12:00 pm, PST, March 12, 2008.

• Comment No, the purpose of this debate is not deletion for the sake of deletion. I do apologize if a missing letter n made you completely confused as to the purpose of the debate or even what I was trying to say so I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for the friendly reminder. The Wikipedia notability criteria for politicians states the following: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone. In my opinion, as I understant that particular policy, the subject of this article, which I assume is yourself (perhaps incorrectly), does not qualify as a notable politician. I hope that answers your question. SWik78 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I understand the importance of proper spelling. I know I would be confused reading an argument about something that was of relevance to a congressional district race and two its major party candidates. It's good that it got fixed before it could confuse people. SWik78 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the measure of notability is the result of Google searches, why even have Wikipedia? Google can stand on its own. Incidentally, delete if you deem necessary, but the media coverage of this candidate begins tomorrow morning. "Notability" is relevant and the rather vague definition of Bio rules as established by Wikipedia certainly does little to more clearly define it. And, again, as can be seen readily on Wikipedia[1], the "rules" are rather arbitrarily enforced. And I mention the missing 'n' only because I expect more of someone who, implicity, is detail oriented. If one of your primary hobbies is sitting around and looking to delete entries, you would think there would be enough detail orientation to avoid simple spelling mistakes while attempting to hang your hat on multi-syllabic words. You chose the word "tangential" in order to convey a certain sophistication so that your opinion would be deemed more valid. By butchering the word (I appreciate your having fixed it already), we are easily reminded that one big word does not an intellect make. As nit-picking hobbyist, it would seem in your best interest to pick nits more carefully. Rant ended. OregonChange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - probably political spam. Not notable until elected to an office, if then. Until then this person does not meet WP:BIO. A similar current deletion debate is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Myers. Wikipedia is not a voter pamphlet or a soapbox. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No claim to notability. Dreamspy (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation of evidence of substantial coverage in third party reliable sources is provided - so far, nothing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to back up any of these claims. No indication of any significant press coverage, or any coverage whatsoever. Politicians running for Congress are not notable merely by running for office. A candidate in a party primary is still a face in the crowd. Nothing to show that this isn't the case here. The article looks like a cut-and paste of the candidate's official bio. The article's author's name and contributions to date indicate a SPA with ties to the subject's campaign. Wikipedia is not a place to conduct your campaign. DarkAudit (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps an article focusing on the 2008 race for the Oregon 2nd district would be more notable? Such an article would be less focused on Mr. Lemas' biography, and more on issues that he is planning on discussing in the race, the state of financing of the candidates, the relatively late filing of opposing candidates, etc. -Yokem55 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.